Sergeant Major Marching Up & Down the Parade Square - Return to Spit & Polish

[lethalLemon]

I love drill and parades, just thought I'd throw that out there

 

[a_majoor]

Dril, dress and deportment and kit inspections per se don't win wars. I doubt the Taliban, Mowhawk warriors or Serbian militias (to name some of the groups I have encountered in the past) really care if we can do sharp hospital corners or "swing like a gate" when we wheel, but the ingrained habit of mind to pay attention to detail means we also pay attention to details like overlapping arcs of fire and surveillance; ensuring the wire is strung properly etc.

Drill is a tool, and the proper application of tools helps create the end results desired. I fully agree that tools can be misapplied or used poorly, and too often marching up and down the parade square substitutes for training. (If you really need something to do, go outside and do range estimation or play "hide and seek" while practicing why things are seen...)

 

[Towards_the_gap]

the German Empire fell nevertheless, no matter how well that Soldier marched.

One might argue that it fell in part due to the mindless obedience of its soldiers!! Just sayin'......


But TV, those two articles you give as evidence, one has a guardsman who later became a russian othodox priest in it's references, and the other is from a JROTC website. I'm just gonna throw it out there that they're probably not the most objective of references!

Most of the 'drill is a pill that needs to be taken twice daily' proponents on here keep saying that drill is timeless, and has worked since the romans in developing professional armies. That I will not argue. Just like the sword has for many a year has enabled armies to hack and stab the other dude, allowing them to win. Should we still use them in combat? No. So is doing drill the smartest and most efficient way of instilling discipline in educated troops? I mention the education bit because drill worked back in the day because 100% of your soldiery were nose-picking farmers, thieves and ditch diggers, and to turn that rabble into something disciplined took drill. Do we need it with the troops we have today? Troops who are arguable more intelligent, educated and technically savvy than ever before in history?

 

[Infanteer]

These are just two parts, but to assert that the Romans lost the empire in spite of lack of drill on the part of the Germans is laughable.  The Western Empire fell for many reasons, but just as the German Soldier of 1939-1945 was arguably superior to his foes (on a one-to-one comparison), the German Empire fell nevertheless, no matter how well that Soldier marched.

Two summaries of what drill is with nothing actually supporting the argument that drill and discipline are related- what does that tell me?  I can write a paper saying drill makes the sky blue, but if I don't offer anything substantive, it's baseless supposition.

Saying that the fall of Rome was in spite of lack of drill on the part of the Germans is indeed laughable, just as laughable as saying Roman military successes were necessarily built upon it.  There are as many examples of successful undrilled armies as there are of drilled ones if one looks at history.

 

[vonGarvin]

Two summaries of what drill is with nothing actually supporting the argument that drill and discipline are related- what does that tell me?  I can write a paper saying drill makes the sky blue, but if I don't offer anything substantive, it's baseless supposition.

Saying that the fall of Rome was in spite of lack of drill on the part of the Germans is indeed laughable, just as laughable as saying Roman military successes were necessarily built upon it.  There are as many examples of successful undrilled armies as there are of drilled ones if one looks at history.

You know what else you can do?  You can go fuck yourself, that's what you can do

That the Roman Army was a highly efficient machine is not in question.  Why was it so?  Probably because of discipline (among other reasons).  Why did Rome have successes and failures?  Political reasons, will to fight, etc.

Why don't you instead explain why drill has no place in a military and why it is useless as a tool to instill and maintain discipline in a profession force instead of bucking against it?  Or, better yet, submit your release so you can join a "thing" that has no drill or whatever.

 

[medicineman]

I find it difficult to inter relate discipline and education...in fact, I've found that some of these really smart and educated kids coming through the SEP system have absolutely ZERO military discipline or respect.  As an example, my NETP course was jam packed with these numpties - wouldn't/couldn't pay attention in class, were disrespectful to the instructors, looked like Irish tramps - Bags O'Shyte - and I've since found that a number of them became problems on their ships.  The problem with alot of really smart cookies is that they tend to over think things when they should be just doing them.  I find it interesting that when things start going the wrong way with people that are under the impression that because they're sick they don't have to respect people's rank and start beaking off, a sharp "stand at attention you!!" shuts them up, has them standing still and quiet and defuses the situation somewhat and gives people a chance to take a breath.  That happens, as GAP noted, as a reflex that comes from training.  Reaction to a command sometimes has to be instantaneous, like when someone says "STOP" because they just realized they're in a minefield, if you keep walking, badness wil occur.  The idea of any drill, be it foot drill or battle drills is simply to train the body so that it will function in a situation without thought, since people freeze under stress - this way the body will take over and get you alive through the initial shock.  I can name a number of occasions in emergencies where I'm still trying to figure out what happened, since the body was working independant of the brain because of training and rehearsal.  Parade square training helps facilitate that (as does classical martial arts training, etc).

BTW, yes, I do enjoy a good parade... and I don't enjoy doing drill all day every day just because though.  As for those that hate drill, just hope I'm not the Base Duty Dork when you're on defaulters  ;D.

MM

 

[blacktriangle]

I don't think anyone is saying there should be NO drill, but we are saying that its importance is being grossly overstated. It is useful for instilling a basic level of discipline in new soldiers and for conducting ceremonial/charge parades...full stop.

Telling someone to "submit their release" because they don't see value in drill is pushing it. I don't know about you TV , but I want a competent leader...I don't care how sharply they wheel. From all accounts I've heard (no names, no pack drill!), Infanteer is just the kind of person that soldiers want to follow.

 

[57Chevy]

I mention the education bit because drill worked back in the day

And it still works today.

because 100% of your soldiery were nose-picking farmers, thieves and ditch diggers

I doubt that.

Do we need it with the troops we have today?

Probably more than ever ;D

Troops who are arguably more intelligent, educated and technically more savvy than ever before.

Says who ?

Soldiers will always be pounding the parade square to utter perfection.
And perfection requires a lot of practice. As the saying goes....."Practice makes Perfect"

 

[Infanteer]

You know what else you can do?  You can go frig yourself, that's what you can do

That the Roman Army was a highly efficient machine is not in question.  Why was it so?  Probably because of discipline (among other reasons).  Why did Rome have successes and failures?  Political reasons, will to fight, etc.

Why don't you instead explain why drill has no place in a military and why it is useless as a tool to instill and maintain discipline in a profession force instead of bucking against it?  Or, better yet, submit your release so you can join a "thing" that has no drill or whatever.

Well, that was sweet.  Feel better now?  Are we all to submit our release papers when we challenge "conventional wisdom"?

I only challenged the statement that "drill = discipline" and that "discipline = battlefield success" made by others on this forum.  If there is no way of building this argument with a little data, then it is strictly opinion.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

And it still works today.

Really? I have trained and led soldiers in combat, and drill had nothing to do with their performance

I doubt that.
So you're telling me that the common dog rifleman in the 1800's was literate, could carry out grade 12 math, and was fluent in at least one other language?

Probably more than ever ;D
How well do you know the soldiers of today's army?


Soldiers will always be pounding the parade square to utter perfection.
And perfection requires a lot of practice. As the saying goes....."Practice makes Perfect''

Well that's an intelligent response....''we do it cause we've always done it''

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Also, I agree that there is no inter-relation between education and discipline. However, I believe that ''imposed discipline'' is for the uneducated, and 'self-discipline' is for educated (by which I mean grade 12) soldiers.

As stated earlier by myself and others, soldiers should do what they must not because it is ingrained in them to do so following a barked word of command, but because they know it is what must be done for whatever reason, because they themselves want to be seen as professional, and most importantly, so they do not let their mates down. In my experience this is not gained on the parade square but through challenging training in the field and operations themselves.

 

[57Chevy]

Towards the Gap,

The soldiers that you trained with and led into combat, like yourself, have learned drill and
more than likely performed on the parade square.    No ?

Yes, you can rest assured that the common dog rifleman of the 1800s was educated for the
norm of his day. Just like soldiers today.....educated to the norm of our day.

That is not what I said ?
But you can go ahead and do drill "because we've always done it", if you want.
Like it or not......Drill will always be present in Military life.
(It is easier when you begin to take a liking to it.)

 

[a_majoor]

Your argument is circular; they do it because "they know it is what must be done for whatever reason" does not explain how they come to know this.

Drill is one aspect of how it is done. The development of self-dicipline does not happen in a vacuum, and sadly many recruits , regardless of their mental ability, don't have the ability to stick with tasks under demanding, difficult or unusual conditions. The smartest guy in the room isn't much good to you when he is cowering in a corner or frozen in shock. Some form of mental conditioning is needed.

Now we can argue about the "best" way to do this. I personally would argue that some sort of "outward bound" type training may well be more effective and appropriate than traditional square bashing, and would love to find some way to test or prove this. I am also willing to be proven wrong as well.

 

[mariomike]

I find it difficult to inter relate discipline and education...in fact, I've found that some of these really smart and educated kids coming through the SEP system have absolutely ZERO military discipline or respect. 

If college did not teach them to respect the profession, the uniform and equipment, or loyalty to the organization that puts food on their table, how can they respect the people they are paid to help? Can you imagine being partnered with some of them? Or, what sort of supervisors they will make one day in the CF? How can they manage others, when they can't even manage themselves?
I bet some of them aren't "kids" either.

 

[57Chevy]

                                        Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Civil War Library---DRILL! DRILL!! DRILL!!! FIGHT! FIGHT!! FIGHT!!!
http://civilwarlibrarian.blogspot.com/2008/01/cwl-drill-drill-drill-fight-fight-fight.html

Drill, Training and the Combat Performance of the Civil War Soldier: Dispelling the Myth of the Poor Soldier, Great Fighter, Mark A. Weitz, Journal of Military History, 62 (April 1998): 263-289.

A theme irregularly runs through the military literature of the American Civil War: the worst soldiers made the best fighters and a wink towards the ragged rebels. To explain this characterization, some truisms are offered: a natural inclination towards fighting, the rural life, Celtic genes, and the strong ties of community and cousins. These explanations are couched in the notion of American, North and South, uniqueness. For Mark A. Weitz, these are not the answers. Civilians are made into good fighters by drill. The classical military definition of a professional army holds the answer. The effectiveness of drill and training is reported in the soldiers' statements. The soldiers' faith in training becomes obvious in their letters and diaries.

Non-military explanations for combat effectiveness divides the concept of fighter from that of a soldier. The skills of a good soldier had to be mastered before he could be an effective fighter. A second problem with most explanations is that they discount the abilities of the trained soldiers. A proclivity for personal violence in the civilian world does not translate to controlled effective violence on the battlefield. Rural life may have acclimated to harsh weather, long and vigorous physical activity, meager meals but the will to overcome threats to personal survival and comfort would not follow from having lived in a rural agricultural environment. The idea of a Celtic gene residing in the blood of Southerners, a notion offered by Grady McWhiney before the movie Braveheart appeared, offers little in the way evidence that the gene exists or Southerners have it.

Weitz first considers a definition of 'strong combat effectiveness'. Soldiers equated this a performing duty under fire while suppressing fear. In illustrating this, the author quotes both Frederick the Great of Prussia, Major Eugene Blackford of the 5th Alabama and Private Amos Steel of the 25th Massachusetts. The misperception that combat effectiveness came from environment and not from drill came from international observers. If the country had no significant military class and no military institutions with a storied past, then good soldiers could not be produced. How then did the American enlisted and and the American commissioned officer fight so well?

The stand of Prentiss' division at Shiloh, 1862, supports the traditional interpretation that training, drill, discipline and tactics contributes to combat effectiveness. Weitz briefly examines the military effectiveness of the ancient Sumerian army, the troops in the Thirty Years War and the army of Shaka Zulu in the 19th century. In each case, the transformation of civilians into soldiers is performed by drill in small and large units. Daily repetition of drills in company and battalion sized units. Patrick Cleburne, a former enlisted man in the British Army, relied on constant drill of his company, later regiment, then brigade and later division to become premier fighting units. Reliance on Hardee's Tactics, marching drill and rifle training were the keys to Cleburne's success as a battlefield commander.

A variety of regimental commanders, North and South, attested to the importance of drill as a means attaining cohesion and efficiency on the march and on the battlefield. As a whole, the great strides that McClellan made with the Army of the Potomac after the Battle of Manassas was due in large measure to constant drilling. Wietz's cites regimental diaries throughout the army as a way of making this point. The tremendous losses in the first two years of the war did not impair the soldiers' faith that drilling was essential for battlefield cohesion. Emory Upton, one of the Army of the Potomac's best field commanders and a tactical innovator, denounced the notion that a poor soldiers could be made into a good fighter by anything other than drill. When soldiers failed on the battlefield, Upton felt it in most cases that it was not that the soldiers were undrilled by that the soldiers nonprofessional officers failed to lead.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

thu

Now we can argue about the "best" way to do this. I personally would argue that some sort of "outward bound" type training may well be more effective and appropriate than traditional square bashing, and would love to find some way to test or prove this. I am also willing to be proven wrong as well.

In this we are in agreement. There may be a better way to train and instill discipline, and from personal experience I know the most I ever learned about discipline and performance during demanding circumstances was during the survival phase of my JNCO cadre. It is those who think drill is the be-all and end-all of discipline and training that I take issue with.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

thu
In this we are in agreement. There may be a better way to train and instill discipline, and from personal experience I know the most I ever learned about discipline and performance during demanding circumstances was during the survival phase of my JNCO cadre. It is those who think drill is the be-all and end-all of discipline and training that I take issue with.

And I think I can honestly say, there is not one of those people here. Even amogst us that advocate that drill is an essential military practice.

 

[ModlrMike]

Why then do we not look at drill as part of the training cycle? My last unit had CO's parade every Tuesday morning. Three hours of left right, left right per week. When other parades had to be done, there was little practice required.

 

[Kat Stevens]

So the drill haters' position is that parades take up valuable time that could be spent learning how to eat snakes, and other high speed ninja skills?  Really?  Soldiers still don't sit around the stores for hours on end waiting for the afternoon O Gp points that are inevitably "PT tomorrow, 07:20, dress for a run"?  If it was all training, all the time, I might see your point.  One point your missing is that unit parades are a no-to-low cost way of keeping troops occupied and focused.  With the budget going the way it is, better get them boots up to scratch, you're gonna be wearing them a lot for the foreseeable future.  Either that, or start letting troops go home when there's nothing going on, and we all know that's not going to happen.

 

[aesop081]

So the drill haters' position is that parades take up valuable time that could be spent learning how to eat snakes, and other high speed ninja skills?  Really?  Soldiers still don't sit around the stores for hours on end waiting for the afternoon O Gp points that are inevitably "PT tomorrow, 07:20, dress for a run"?  If it was all training, all the time, I might see your point.  One point your missing is that unit parades are a no-to-low cost way of keeping troops occupied and focused.  With the budget going the way it is, better get them boots up to scratch, you're gonna be wearing them a lot for the foreseeable future.  Either that, or start letting troops go home when there's nothing going on, and we all know that's not going to happen.

Kat,

I work in a unit that works 24/7 in 3 shifts. There is no breezway for the troops to either sweep or sit in. We launch and recover aircraft daily for both training and operational flights. There is no sitting around i stores for hours. When the troops are actualy at home base ( a pretty rare event as most training events are abroad) they have plenty of academics to absorb so yes, it is "all training, all the time". We don't need a "no-to-low cost way of keeping the troops occupied", we have plenty of ways to do it that accomplish something.

There was plenty of sitting around when i was in the CERs but there more to life in the CF than the combat arms.

And i'm the one who got told i come accross as having a limited perspective............